It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Court blocks Texas Voter ID law: Calling it a "Poll Tax"

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Indigo5

What arae you talking about, what do you provide to register to vote and GET your voter registration card????

I know in California, all you do is fill out a form and send it in, no verification whatsoever...

Jaden


Nothing personal...but this is the problem with these debates..People just say sh*&...

"I know"?....

California Secretary of State
www.dmv.org...

You need to provide your DL or State ID number (which they pull your signature from the DMV), Social Security Number, Address and place and date of birth.

If you do not have a Drivers license or State ID, you can provide your date of birth + Social Security number to confirm citizenship, plus you must go through a phone interview.

You can fill out an "Application" to register to vote without any of the above, but an "Application" is just that and you aren't registered until citizenship is validated via one or all of the above.

Please show me a state in the union where you aren't required to prove citizenship in order to register to vote. Just link me to the Secretary of State site...It should be easy?

This isn't an ideological debate or even political, it is facts vs. ignorance.


edit on 16-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: Indigo5
For effs sake...You PURCHASE a GUN..It is a PURCHASE...You do not PURCHASE the right to vote. Voting is not a consumer transaction. The purchase of cigarettes, alcohol, guns et al are consumer transactions between private citizens.


incorrect...

you must purchase a permit, and a license.....those cost. therefore, it is a charge, to exercise a constitutionally protected right...



No...It is a right to PURCHASE a gun...Not a right to be subsidized in that consumer purchase transaction.

Charges associated with voting are expressly prohibited in the constitution.

Charges associated with purchasing guns or anything else are not. $ trading hands is a fundamental part of the concept of Purchasing something. $ trading hands is also illegal with voting.

Voting is not a purchase.

These are simple and accurate words above...Geez, how else to communicate basic reality...

What you are suggesting through your conflating the right to OWN a gun with actually PURCHASING a gun, is that since the constitution guarantees that right of OWNERSHIP, then every American should be able to PURCHASE guns at ZERO cost aka for free. Conflating the right of ownership with the actual transaction. You also have a right to own a home...doesn't mean the government should buy it for you.

I feel like this is an earth flat discussion when the debate is about whether purchasing something is the same as voting.

That small voice that keeps reminding you that you are reaching too far should be listened to more often IMO.
edit on 16-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

There is nothing in the US Constitution dealing with voting and identification.

The Constitution merely states the right to vote cannot be infringed upon / denied (although convicted felons in prison lose the right to vote). Who can vote was left to the states.

The civil rights acts in the 1960's codified voting procedures. You run into the issue of the supremacy clause of the constitution where if federal and state law conflict, federal law trumps state law.

the ONLY reason the federal government is involved in elections at all is because of federal elections. If a state required identity to vote in state elections that is lawful. Kansas was looking at breaking up state and federal voting. State voting requires an ID to vote. Federal voting does not. By separating them (holding elections for state and federal on different days)they don't run into the issue of the Federal Law.

Wiki - US voting rights overview

Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the United States and the U.S. state where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (14th Amendment; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))

"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).
Requirement that a person reside in a jurisdiction for an extended period of time (14th Amendment; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972))[3][4][4]

In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.



edit on 16-10-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


(post by Daedalus removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The comparison with gun ownership/purchase/registration as well as licensing while somewhat off-topic, has been made part of the topic, so let's compare.

Number of US States that have No Registration and No Licensing requirements: 37 (74% of the country).

There are 13 states (most with large urban areas) that have registration and/or licensing (usually on handguns.) Varies by state; check the link. (For those of you who contest these restrictions, for which I see the logic while not agreeing with you, I refer you to Amendment 10 - States Rights and various Supreme Court decisions.)

That's right, in the vast majority of the country, this is a moot point and a null comparison to voting rights and voter ID.

Next?

Gun Laws in the United States



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, only infringement just a little bit...........for just a few..

Infringement is still infringement.

People are still required, in ALL states to provide a Govt based Photo ID to exercise a right granted by the 2nd.

It is a 2nd Amendment tax just as much as requiring a Govt based ID to vote is a poll tax.

But, we all know you and the other Progressives will state "It is different" in some form or another.

Because it always is different.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Who can vote was left to the states.


Incorrect...They must be citizens of the United States, at least 18 years old.

Amendment XXIV, which was ratified by the states in 1964:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."

Amendment XXVI, which was ratified by the states in 1971:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

AMENDMENT XIV, Passed by Congress June 13 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2 of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section II: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States or in any way abriged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of the representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.



edit on 16-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

So, since you persist in calling me something I'm not, and since our ideas seem to be antithetical to each other, I feel that it's fine for me to refer to you and your ideas as Regressive as the opposite of mine: I do hope you take no offense.


I would just bet you're a States Righter (as well as being a Regressive). You must look to that issue for the handful of states that place requirements on purchase, style and method of carry.

I'd be the first to state outright that you and your Regressive buddies have a specific and absolutist interpretation of what the 2nd means. For example, the question that you've previously dodged repeatedly, like most Regressives, should the mentally ill be able to purchase and carry firearms? If you say no (and my god I would hope you can at least say no to that) then you're also accepting, at least on your stated absolutist and Regressive terms, "a little infringement."

Every Supreme Court case that addressed the issue (you know that body that has been created in the Constitution to address issues of Constitutionality) has maintained a similar variation on the concept that restricting certain types of weapons and/or certain categories of carriers:



Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. District of Columbia v. Heller, Pp. 54–56.


That is the current "law of the land" under the US Constitution, and yet, only affects gun purchase, registration and/or licensing in 13 US States, and only in a minority of those states does it affect anything other than handguns.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Indigo5

Permits cost money. Licenses cost money. One, or both are required to exercise your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms...nobody said anything about government subsidizing firearm purchases, or getting guns for free.


Since you appear entirely incapable of comprehending the difference between consumer transactions and voting, and the fees and taxes associated with a physical purchase of a product versus voting...

Let's let that logical contortion sit and move on...

Where does the Constitution forbid fees associated with gun ownership?

Because the 24th Amendment explicitly forbids fees associated with voting.

It seems your issue is with the constitution?
edit on 16-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, only infringement just a little bit...........for just a few..

Infringement is still infringement.



No ..."Infringement" is whatever someone throwing a tantrum says it is.

I was taxed this morning buying a cup of coffee. My right to happiness was infringed upon.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

State voting requires an ID to vote. Federal voting does not.


You are aware that your Voter Registration Card serves as an ID? And that it is Valid in both Federal and State elections?
And that in order to receive a Voter Registration Card you must provide at a bare minimum your Social Security number, Date of Birth and proof of address to validate your citizenship? Even the most Liberal of states, like California, add an in-person screening to that requirement when a photo ID is not available.

What are you missing? Please direct me to a Secretary of State website stating otherwise. Have you ever actually voted? Do you have a Voter registration card?
edit on 16-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

so, just because only a little bit of the country is doing it wrong, that makes it ok?

and what about the federal tax stamp, required to own class 3 weapons? that's another unconstitutional financial barrier, put up in front of the people, by the federal government...

any way you slice it, it's still charging a fee, to exercise a constitutionally protected right...which is wrong.
edit on 10-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

god almighty.

i'm done with you. you are completely incapable of comprehension, or reasoning.

i stated that there are MASSIVE differences between business transactions, and voting...ya' know, in the posting you ignored most of....

nobody implied that they were anything alike. the constitution makes NO allowance for requiring a permit to carry(bear), it also makes no allowance for requiring a license to own(keep)...therefore, the requirement to have a license, and/or permit, to keep and bear are unconstitutional fees, being charged, before one can exercise their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms....aside from the fact that the license is what facilitates the purchase, those fees are completely disconnected from the actual purchase of the firearm. the fact still remains that unless you pay these separate fees, you are disallowed to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

the fact that you either cannot comprehend this, or that you are simply in denial, because it facts don't mesh with your deluded world view, speaks VOLUMES about the quality of your character, and the overall state of your mental health.

i'll say it again...and I.D. is NOT a fee associated with voting....and I.D. is required for MANY everyday activities...it is not SPECIFICALLY for voting... it's not a voting license, or voting permit...if it were, then it would absolutely be a poll tax... but it's not..

my issue is not with the constitution....my issue is with delusional people believing it's ok to infringe upon one right, and not ok to infringe upon another, based purely on personal bias....i take issue with people cherry-picking what rights should be infringed upon, based only on whether or not they like or dislike the rights in question..

my issue is with people like you.
edit on 10-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)


(post by Daedalus removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Daedelus,

I don't believe that I have previously said that what a few of the States have decided to do is "ok."

I've merely pointed out that it's not an issue in the great majority of states, and therefore, in my opinion, hardly comparable to the issues with Voting Rights.

But, I have to admit, that as far as restrictions on the "right to bear arms" goes it is my personal opinionthat there are some logical limitations on the right, as there are on every right (reference Heller).

I personally find the absolutist argument (that no government in the US has ANY right to place ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearms or ownership) ludicrous. Examples being: the mentally ill, known violent and repeated felons, and non-adults as well as fully automatic weapons, huge magazines, et. al.

The United States outstrips the entire world in terms of individual gun ownership by a quite large factor, so arguments that the 2nd Amendment rights are being repressed or taken away seem equally ludicrous to me.

That's my opinion at any rate.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
No, I have not accepted any progressive delusions that there is no need to require photo ID at the polls in order to vote. At this time, we are arguing a moot point. The Texas Voter ID law is back in effect, and will be enforced in the upcoming election. I don't buy the argument this law places an undue burden on minorities, poor, and now women who are married and/or divorced.

What is basically being argued is that anyone in these categories are wholly incapable of performing any of the required procedures to comply with the voter ID laws. The other citizen's of these United States, who do what is required to exercise their right to vote, which includes minorities, poor, elderly, disabled, male and female, should now be required to pay all costs for these souls that are supposedly disenfranchised.

There's the problem. Nobody wants to take responsibility and perform the duties required to function in this society, unless someone is willing to pay for it. Oh no, not them, but someone else. Well, some things will never change. It doesn't matter what we discuss, someone is going to feel left out or slighted. You can't enroll in pre-k or any other type school without a birth certificate and shot record. What I see is if it benefits them, obtaining these documents is no problem. If not, the excuses start flying.

I really wish there was a realistic solution, but I don't foresee that anywhere on the horizon. I guess we are in a wait and see mode for now. I'm ready for this election to be done with.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

and this is why you and i are still talking....because you're not a complete goddamn idiot.

you're willing to discuss something, without working in absolutes, and immediately jumping to extreme conclusions.

i think things have strayed a bit off topic, but still...as i said before, the gun thing was really only brought up, as an example of an actual unconstitutional fee, that acts as an actual financial barrier to a citizen exercising a constitutionally protected right....as some of you are erroneously claiming the requirement to show I.D. when voting is....

a voting license, or voting permit would absolutely be a "poll tax", and i would be completely against that, because it is unconstitutional, and more or less, morally wrong. but nobody's calling for such a thing. a firearm license, and firearm permit, and class 3 tax stamps ARE "second amendment taxes". as their ONLY function is to restrict a constitutionally protected right, whereas an I.D. is used for, and is required for a great many things, completely unrelated to voting... i don't see how you could argue with this, as it's fact.

the whole point was that one right is infringed upon, and your "side" doesn't seem to have a problem with it, but then "you"(generic) take issue with a PERCEIVED infringement....now whether that's a result of delusion, or agenda, or whatever, i have no idea, but that, also, is a fact..

this is what it's about, this was the point, this is why it was brought up...
edit on 10-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Indigo5

the constitution makes NO allowance for requiring a permit to carry(bear), it also makes no allowance for requiring a license to own(keep)...therefore, the requirement to have a license, and/or permit, to keep and bear are unconstitutional fees



"No allowance"?? You are confused about the nature of the constitution. It is not a comprehensive document designed to make "allowances", but rather a document that it is referring to acts which government must refrain from doing vs. a positive duty of the government to act.

Put another way the constitution does not say you can't steal your neighbors bike, doesn't mean that bike stealing is constitutional.


The Constitution does expressly forbid any fees associated with voting.


It does not do the same for gun ownership.


If it was unconstitutional to associate fees with the purchase of a gun, then the constitution would say the same as it does with voting.

Not sure how to make that any more plain? Maybe review the constitution? Or take it up with the authors?




originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Indigo5

i'll say it again...and I.D. is NOT a fee associated with voting....and I.D. is required for MANY everyday activities...it is not SPECIFICALLY for voting... it's not a voting license, or voting permit...if it were, then it would absolutely be a poll tax... but it's not..




You continue to make no sense. You are claiming
....that as long as the required purchase has another use it is not a Poll tax? The constitution and the courts vehemently disagree with this view... Thus people are not required to be land owners to vote. Nor purchase a candy bar.



it's not a voting license, or voting permit...if it were, then it would absolutely be a poll tax... but it's not..


If it is "not a voting license, or voting permit" then it would neither license nor permit you to vote...

We are in pretty basic territory here...



my issue is with people like you.


My issue is with facts...perhaps that is the nature of your frustration?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


So, since you persist in calling me something I'm not, and since our ideas seem to be antithetical to each other, I feel that it's fine for me to refer to you and your ideas as Regressive as the opposite of mine: I do hope you take no offense.

I would expect nothing less then the hijacking of terms and words.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
I would just bet you're a States Righter (as well as being a Regressive). You must look to that issue for the handful of states that place requirements on purchase, style and method of carry.

States rights??? That is how the country was established.
There is still a Federal Mandate for all persons wanting to exercise a right, to have and show a Govt based photo ID.
Just like the provision to vote.




originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'd be the first to state outright that you and your Regressive buddies have a specific and absolutist interpretation of what the 2nd means. For example, the question that you've previously dodged repeatedly, like most Regressives, should the mentally ill be able to purchase and carry firearms?

Ahhh, your foot should taste pretty good as I addressed this several pages back.
How about you actually read what others reply with.



originally posted by: Gryphon66

If you say no (and my god I would hope you can at least say no to that) then you're also accepting, at least on your stated absolutist and Regressive terms, "a little infringement."

Already addressed.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Every Supreme Court case that addressed the issue (you know that body that has been created in the Constitution to address issues of Constitutionality) has maintained a similar variation on the concept that restricting certain types of weapons and/or certain categories of carriers:

So, again, a little infringement.


originally posted by: Gryphon66


That is the current "law of the land" under the US Constitution, and yet, only affects gun purchase, registration and/or licensing in 13 US States, and only in a minority of those states does it affect anything other than handguns.


All purchases through an FFL are required to have the purchaser show a Govt based Photo ID. Again, the same provision for the voting issue.


SO....poll tax and taxation on firearms...All the same.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, only infringement just a little bit...........for just a few..

Infringement is still infringement.



No ..."Infringement" is whatever someone throwing a tantrum says it is.

I was taxed this morning buying a cup of coffee. My right to happiness was infringed upon.


I love it when Progressives use this dramatic based logic.

Show, please show me where the right to purchase a cup of coffee shall not be infringed upon?
Happiness is subjective.




top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join